چکیده انگلیسی

This article presents a case study of a Mexican subsidiary of a U.S. multinational corporation (MNC) that has successfully adopted characteristics of a learning organization. The case is of particular interest because much of the cross-cultural evidence would indicate that employee involvement, work teams, and other management practices associated with a learning strategy, might be incompatible with the Mexican culture. Therefore, the case is used to unravel diverse factors—within the environment and organization—that affect the implementation of different management strategies in foreign subsidiaries. In addition, the case points to the importance of the human resource management practices as a mechanism that facilitates the implementation of management strategies in subsidiaries. Interestingly, while some of the HR practices adopted were standard practices that would be implemented regardless of the country, others were culture-specific and yet other practices were translations of U.S. HR practices to be sensitive to the values of the country. A model is presented and the role of HR within a global context is discussed.
In an effort to remain competitive, many organizations are increasingly moving towards management approaches that promote organizational learning. Studies show that an organizational learning approach has resulted in improved customer satisfaction and increased performance (Hult, 1998). Moreover, research on multinational corporations (MNCs) increasingly points to the importance of a global learning focus that offers more competitiveness and flexibility in organizational capabilities to deal with the increasing complexity of the international environment (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989). As MNCs implement learning strategies in specific subsidiaries, it will become critical for managers to understand the factors that affect the implementation of different management practices that facilitate learning.
One factor that affects the implementation of management practices that has received significant attention is culture. Culture can be defined at different levels that range from the group to the organization to the national level (Erez & Earley, 1994). Culture comprises values and norms that guide individuals’ behavior. Many view organizational practices and theories as culturally bound (Adler, 1997 and Hofstede, 1980) which would mean that the values of a country should be compatible with a management practice for it to result in employee motivation. For example, in assessing the compatibility between the Polish culture and the underlying values of total quality management (TQM), Roney (1997) found some major incompatibilities. One such major incongruence exists between the deterministic TQM philosophy and the fatalistic Polish culture that may hinder the empowerment of employees.
Erez and Earley (1994) have noted the innate congruence between participatory management techniques such as quality circles and the collectivistic orientation of the Japanese culture by which the company’s goals are given priority. In contrast, Lawrence and Yeh (1994) found major differences between the Mexican and Japanese cultures that would appear to make implementation of Japanese manufacturing techniques more difficult in Mexico. At first glance, the Mexican and Japanese cultures appear similar on several cultural dimensions such as collectivistism (i.e., both cultures are more focused on the group rather than the individual) and power distance (i.e., both cultures are hierarchical). Nevertheless, while Japanese employees are collectivists in their work relations, in Mexico an individual’s loyalty is directed toward the family and extended family (relatives and close friends). The work group may be seen as a competing collective that may take away from the loyalty towards the family. Similarly, within their hierarchy, the Japanese are rigid about status and communication but not about authority and responsibility. The ringi system of group consensus decision-making, by which a decision is signed off by each individual involved in the decision-making process, distributes authority and allows opinions to be voiced. In contrast, decisions in Mexico are made at the top and truly reflect individual decision-making. Hence, management practices that are innately congruent with the Japanese culture may not be congruent with the Mexican culture.
Several comparative management researchers (Farmer & Richman, 1965 and Negandhi & Prasad, 1971) have discussed other factors and their influence on management practices. For example, Negandhi and Prasad note that management practices are affected by environmental factors such as socioeconomic, educational, political, and legal factors. Recent models have similarly proposed that institutional differences (i.e., the regulatory, cognitive, and normative institutions) between countries should have an effect on the implementation of organizational practices in foreign affiliates (Kostova, 1999).
Organizational factors have also been proposed to affect management practices. In Negandhi and Prasad’s model, management’s philosophy is noted to influence management practices. Empirically, Rosenzweig and Nohria (1994) found that organizational factors influence the human resource (HR) practices of subsidiaries. Specifically they found that the method of founding of the subsidiary, the presence of expatriates, and the extent of communication with the parent significantly affected the degree of similarity to local HR practices. Kostova’s (1999) recent work also includes the organizational context (a subsidiary’s favorability for learning and compatibility with practice), and the relational context (a subsidiary’s commitment, identity, and trust as well as dependence on the parent company) as important factors that affect the implementation of organizational practices in foreign subsidiaries.
Finally, managers can work with certain variables to facilitate the transferability of management practices across cultural boundaries. International human resource management (IHRM) seeks to develop practices that provide fit between the management style and the overall business strategy while effectively dealing with cultural differences (Butler & Teagarden, 1993). For example, strong reward systems have been noted to illicit behaviors that are desired by the organization (Kerr & Slocum, 1987). More generally speaking, the organizational culture literature notes that the recruitment, socialization and turnover of an organization (Harrison & Carroll, 1991) affect the transmission and subsequent stability of the organizational culture. Thus HR practices and strategies have the ability to affect employee behavior and instill certain values that build an internal culture and can therefore be used as a control mechanism in the MNC (Jaeger, 1983).
As a MNC transfers learning processes to their subsidiaries, managers will need to understand the degree to which diverse factors including but not limited to national cultural values affect the transferability of different management practices. Managers must understand what factors might facilitate the implementation of management practices that are at first glance incompatible with a culture. One method to gaining insight into the different factors that may affect management in different countries is by studying specific cases that defy the common wisdom. This article studies one such case: a subsidiary of a U.S. MNC in Mexico that has adopted a learning approach which as noted below is increasingly being adopted by MNCs but appears to be incongruent with the Mexican culture.

مقدمه انگلیسی

In an effort to remain competitive, many organizations are increasingly moving towards management approaches that promote organizational learning. Studies show that an organizational learning approach has resulted in improved customer satisfaction and increased performance (Hult, 1998). Moreover, research on multinational corporations (MNCs) increasingly points to the importance of a global learning focus that offers more competitiveness and flexibility in organizational capabilities to deal with the increasing complexity of the international environment (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989). As MNCs implement learning strategies in specific subsidiaries, it will become critical for managers to understand the factors that affect the implementation of different management practices that facilitate learning.
One factor that affects the implementation of management practices that has received significant attention is culture. Culture can be defined at different levels that range from the group to the organization to the national level (Erez & Earley, 1994). Culture comprises values and norms that guide individuals’ behavior. Many view organizational practices and theories as culturally bound (Adler, 1997 and Hofstede, 1980) which would mean that the values of a country should be compatible with a management practice for it to result in employee motivation. For example, in assessing the compatibility between the Polish culture and the underlying values of total quality management (TQM), Roney (1997) found some major incompatibilities. One such major incongruence exists between the deterministic TQM philosophy and the fatalistic Polish culture that may hinder the empowerment of employees.
Erez and Earley (1994) have noted the innate congruence between participatory management techniques such as quality circles and the collectivistic orientation of the Japanese culture by which the company’s goals are given priority. In contrast, Lawrence and Yeh (1994) found major differences between the Mexican and Japanese cultures that would appear to make implementation of Japanese manufacturing techniques more difficult in Mexico. At first glance, the Mexican and Japanese cultures appear similar on several cultural dimensions such as collectivistism (i.e., both cultures are more focused on the group rather than the individual) and power distance (i.e., both cultures are hierarchical). Nevertheless, while Japanese employees are collectivists in their work relations, in Mexico an individual’s loyalty is directed toward the family and extended family (relatives and close friends). The work group may be seen as a competing collective that may take away from the loyalty towards the family. Similarly, within their hierarchy, the Japanese are rigid about status and communication but not about authority and responsibility. The ringi system of group consensus decision-making, by which a decision is signed off by each individual involved in the decision-making process, distributes authority and allows opinions to be voiced. In contrast, decisions in Mexico are made at the top and truly reflect individual decision-making. Hence, management practices that are innately congruent with the Japanese culture may not be congruent with the Mexican culture.
Several comparative management researchers (Farmer & Richman, 1965 and Negandhi & Prasad, 1971) have discussed other factors and their influence on management practices. For example, Negandhi and Prasad note that management practices are affected by environmental factors such as socioeconomic, educational, political, and legal factors. Recent models have similarly proposed that institutional differences (i.e., the regulatory, cognitive, and normative institutions) between countries should have an effect on the implementation of organizational practices in foreign affiliates (Kostova, 1999).
Organizational factors have also been proposed to affect management practices. In Negandhi and Prasad’s model, management’s philosophy is noted to influence management practices. Empirically, Rosenzweig and Nohria (1994) found that organizational factors influence the human resource (HR) practices of subsidiaries. Specifically they found that the method of founding of the subsidiary, the presence of expatriates, and the extent of communication with the parent significantly affected the degree of similarity to local HR practices. Kostova’s (1999) recent work also includes the organizational context (a subsidiary’s favorability for learning and compatibility with practice), and the relational context (a subsidiary’s commitment, identity, and trust as well as dependence on the parent company) as important factors that affect the implementation of organizational practices in foreign subsidiaries.
Finally, managers can work with certain variables to facilitate the transferability of management practices across cultural boundaries. International human resource management (IHRM) seeks to develop practices that provide fit between the management style and the overall business strategy while effectively dealing with cultural differences (Butler & Teagarden, 1993). For example, strong reward systems have been noted to illicit behaviors that are desired by the organization (Kerr & Slocum, 1987). More generally speaking, the organizational culture literature notes that the recruitment, socialization and turnover of an organization (Harrison & Carroll, 1991) affect the transmission and subsequent stability of the organizational culture. Thus HR practices and strategies have the ability to affect employee behavior and instill certain values that build an internal culture and can therefore be used as a control mechanism in the MNC (Jaeger, 1983).
As a MNC transfers learning processes to their subsidiaries, managers will need to understand the degree to which diverse factors including but not limited to national cultural values affect the transferability of different management practices. Managers must understand what factors might facilitate the implementation of management practices that are at first glance incompatible with a culture. One method to gaining insight into the different factors that may affect management in different countries is by studying specific cases that defy the common wisdom. This article studies one such case: a subsidiary of a U.S. MNC in Mexico that has adopted a learning approach which as noted below is increasingly being adopted by MNCs but appears to be incongruent with the Mexican culture.

نتیجه گیری انگلیسی

Based on the model, the HR practices then result in an organizational culture and a set of congruent employee behaviors. The organizational culture and employee behaviors are also influenced directly by environmental factors. For example, a lower level of education may impede an employee from being more self-directed. Similarly, an employee that respects high power differences may be more reluctant to take initiative or speak up to a manager/supervisor. Nevertheless, in Equipos, the HR practices (standard, culture-specific, and translated practices) appeared to be the link between the environmental and organizational factors and the employee behaviors related to successful organizational learning practices.
Less complex alternative explanations could be derived from the data presented by this case study. For example, Equipos paid higher wages and good fringe benefits that might allow them to attract and retain skilled workers and induce them to accept their management methods. Even if this explanation is a plausible one, the case is still valid since it contradicts the cross-cultural research that indicates that such management practices should be impossible to implement in Mexico. In addition, in the interviews, the employees noted that they had received external offers from other companies, often far better financial offers but that they could not imagine leaving the “culture” of Equipos.
The model presented would prescribe that HR’s role in a MNC take upon a more strategic focus. Increasingly in both domestic and international companies, HR is being called upon to play a more strategic role (Ulrich, 1998). Much research, both empirical and theoretical, has focused on the importance of strategic human resource practices. Pfeffer, Hatano, and Santalainen (1995) write about the human resource practices that allow companies to achieve a unique competitive advantage through their employees. Huselid (1995) and others have shown empirically how high performance work practices affect employee outcomes and corporate financial performance. This case demonstrates that the use of high performance practices can also lead to a competitive advantage in overseas subsidiaries, even when the national culture may seem incongruent with the values underlying these practices.
This model provides other implications for the new role of HR within a company that is globalizing. For example, HR managers can be involved in the FDI decision and conduct research at the level of relevance, which may be regional rather than national. In addition, assessing cultural fit and other important organizational variables is also critical. For example, management’s philosophy surfaced as an important organizational level variable that impacts HR practices. This case shows how these organizational variables have a strong impact on the HR practices of the firm. Hence, for example, when a MNC is considering a joint venture, the appropriate level of importance must be given in a due diligence process to the management philosophy and attitude towards the local culture. One method of building a strong culture is for MNCs to try to joint venture with companies that have similar organizational cultures. Certainly, there are numerous examples of ventures that have failed or run into significant problems due to different corporate cultures. Alternatively, a management philosophy congruent with that of the MNC can be implemented with expatriates.
Once investment has taken place, the HR management function becomes important in helping implement the HR practices that will engender the appropriate employee behaviors. But corporate or subsidiary HR managers must hire culturally savvy subsidiary managers (whether expatriate or host-country managers) and work closely with these managers to translate practices in ways that make them congruent with the local culture.